Two ways to help get me on your side of an issue. One, be consistent in what you say and believe. Two, be willing to admit that things are complicated in the real world. I think you made a great argument for your position and it is where I have been starting to lean on campus speech.
You and FIRE are very principled. The money Harvard gets from the government is not an entitlement, and in my opinion, should be taken away, but only after due process, or a deal is reached.
thanks for writing this...with the govertnment version of the Bible.
"To the extent the administration is seeking to sanction Harvard because of anti-Semitism on its campus, Title IV is the law that has been used to evaluate such complaints."
Thanks for writing this, Greg! It strikes all the right tones and notes from the point of view of authenticity and open-mindedness along with support for constitutional First Amendment rights. The situation is complex and you don’t go for stereotypes or over-stating or under-stating. We at the Center for Real Dialogue (www.realdialogue.org) support your approach. We are not lawyers and I don’t know the specifics of legal procedures, but I embrace the importance of hearing out both sides of a complex contentious issue and I believe you have set out both sides here. Bravo!
Everything you say is true and correct. The question remains how Harvard will change to become credible, fair, and decent. And likely only lawsuits will work.
How do ideologically captured institutions change? I struggle with the tension between the Administration going too far in the many ways you noted in your essay and in many other ways as well on the one hand. While on the other hand, what would it take to bring these institutions back to an intellectually neutral platform. People like me in the meek middle don't have the courage or the mojo to confront institutions and the "fervent" followers of these ideologies. Bullies tend to have the gumption to do so but bring with them much baggage and are difficult to stop once they get going.
Conflicts like this can have very bad endings. I pray that organizations like FIRE can find allies in the political classes and help bring this all to a good end. We'll see...
The glaring problem with otherwise academically flawless and clearly written of Mr. Lukianoff's piece is two-fold. One: the Harvard affair is not purely Constitutional, meaining the prescribed ways for our elected rulers to govern. The word "civilization" is frequently uttered by the defenders of Jewsish civil rights in education and elsewhere, and it is not merely a rhetorical exaggeration. Two: Trump and his people unleashing the Government's Jaggernaut on Harvard are ablosultely correct in the substance of their demands. Harvard must surrender.
Moreover, it is not just the Governent's "compelling interest", it is our country compelling interest. The fact that Harvard, even after it fell unter Trumpian attack, still does not back off and insists on its rights to teach that Jews are the inferior race (uncapable of running a nation-state and prone to kill babies) by citing its independence, is deeply troubling. For the Jews and for the Gentiles. You see it as a principled defence of freedom of speech and of the constitutional processes, yet it is eqiually likely that Garber and Co. have declared the principled liberty to say anything well beyond what is both socially and scientifically acceptable and to act against Jewish principled interests as the US citizens. Well, they do not have absolute freedom to say any garbage precisely because they are a major educational institution exterting enormous influence. Science is anything but free speech. Scientists are bound by the laws of nature, experiment, observation, and honest reporting.
Finally, let me remind you that in the Preamble the Constitution calls for ensuring domestic Tranquility on par with establishing Justice. The Harvard trouble-makers, defending the undefencible, became reckess provocators clearly begging for the society to rein them in - before it all gets too late and dangerous. Spreading institutionalized anti-Jewish genocidal racism is a sure way not only to sacrifice our beloved liberties but to lose the entire country either to the Chinese or to the Revolutionaries, or both.
You wrote, Harvard was 'far from innocent'. Not quite - it is guilty.
Two hundred and fifty five years after John Adams defended the British soldiers and we still have large swaths of Americans who don't understand why even reprehensible individuals and organizations deserve their actual or proverbial day in court.
Last I checked nobody on the Harvard staff could use guns to achieve their aims.
Uncle Sam can.
People forget that so much of 1A jurisprudence is based on whether any conditions are point of view-neutral or not. The easy test for that is to imagine what the "other politicial side" would do with the same powers. Saying one's own side is full of angels and would _never_ do that is not an acceptable answer.
We all should be on the same side of these issues. Our Constitution commands that each person's religion, religious affiliation(s) or sentiments for or against any religion be left to the dictates of such person's own conscience. Mere expressions of support for or against any religion or religious association are beyond the power of any government in the U.S. to regulate.
James Madison put it pretty well in his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, [ca. 20 June] 1785"
"[I]t is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties" secured by the First Amendment and "this prudent jealousy" is "the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the [American] Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish [any religion], in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of [any religion], in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"
Humble 1L here, so take my legal perspective with a full dose of salt. Procedure is an unreliable basis for objecting to exercises executive power. If the government's interest is significant, the procedural requirements can shrink in a hurry. I find it odd that procedural objections are #1 on your list. If you want to understand the "legal" situation, you have to be able to imagine that things could change. Especially procedural requirements, but also other ambiguous areas of law such as context-dependency of rights.
Two ways to help get me on your side of an issue. One, be consistent in what you say and believe. Two, be willing to admit that things are complicated in the real world. I think you made a great argument for your position and it is where I have been starting to lean on campus speech.
Dear Greg,
You and FIRE are very principled. The money Harvard gets from the government is not an entitlement, and in my opinion, should be taken away, but only after due process, or a deal is reached.
thanks for writing this...with the govertnment version of the Bible.
randy
"To the extent the administration is seeking to sanction Harvard because of anti-Semitism on its campus, Title IV is the law that has been used to evaluate such complaints."
Should be "Title VI"?
Good catch! It's been edited.
Simply superb. Thank you!
I'm with FIRE on this one. If that means I'm also with Harvard...well, I can live with that.
Thanks for writing this, Greg! It strikes all the right tones and notes from the point of view of authenticity and open-mindedness along with support for constitutional First Amendment rights. The situation is complex and you don’t go for stereotypes or over-stating or under-stating. We at the Center for Real Dialogue (www.realdialogue.org) support your approach. We are not lawyers and I don’t know the specifics of legal procedures, but I embrace the importance of hearing out both sides of a complex contentious issue and I believe you have set out both sides here. Bravo!
Everything you say is true and correct. The question remains how Harvard will change to become credible, fair, and decent. And likely only lawsuits will work.
First off, thanks FIRE for doing what you do.
How do ideologically captured institutions change? I struggle with the tension between the Administration going too far in the many ways you noted in your essay and in many other ways as well on the one hand. While on the other hand, what would it take to bring these institutions back to an intellectually neutral platform. People like me in the meek middle don't have the courage or the mojo to confront institutions and the "fervent" followers of these ideologies. Bullies tend to have the gumption to do so but bring with them much baggage and are difficult to stop once they get going.
Conflicts like this can have very bad endings. I pray that organizations like FIRE can find allies in the political classes and help bring this all to a good end. We'll see...
The glaring problem with otherwise academically flawless and clearly written of Mr. Lukianoff's piece is two-fold. One: the Harvard affair is not purely Constitutional, meaining the prescribed ways for our elected rulers to govern. The word "civilization" is frequently uttered by the defenders of Jewsish civil rights in education and elsewhere, and it is not merely a rhetorical exaggeration. Two: Trump and his people unleashing the Government's Jaggernaut on Harvard are ablosultely correct in the substance of their demands. Harvard must surrender.
Moreover, it is not just the Governent's "compelling interest", it is our country compelling interest. The fact that Harvard, even after it fell unter Trumpian attack, still does not back off and insists on its rights to teach that Jews are the inferior race (uncapable of running a nation-state and prone to kill babies) by citing its independence, is deeply troubling. For the Jews and for the Gentiles. You see it as a principled defence of freedom of speech and of the constitutional processes, yet it is eqiually likely that Garber and Co. have declared the principled liberty to say anything well beyond what is both socially and scientifically acceptable and to act against Jewish principled interests as the US citizens. Well, they do not have absolute freedom to say any garbage precisely because they are a major educational institution exterting enormous influence. Science is anything but free speech. Scientists are bound by the laws of nature, experiment, observation, and honest reporting.
Finally, let me remind you that in the Preamble the Constitution calls for ensuring domestic Tranquility on par with establishing Justice. The Harvard trouble-makers, defending the undefencible, became reckess provocators clearly begging for the society to rein them in - before it all gets too late and dangerous. Spreading institutionalized anti-Jewish genocidal racism is a sure way not only to sacrifice our beloved liberties but to lose the entire country either to the Chinese or to the Revolutionaries, or both.
You wrote, Harvard was 'far from innocent'. Not quite - it is guilty.
Two hundred and fifty five years after John Adams defended the British soldiers and we still have large swaths of Americans who don't understand why even reprehensible individuals and organizations deserve their actual or proverbial day in court.
Last I checked nobody on the Harvard staff could use guns to achieve their aims.
Uncle Sam can.
People forget that so much of 1A jurisprudence is based on whether any conditions are point of view-neutral or not. The easy test for that is to imagine what the "other politicial side" would do with the same powers. Saying one's own side is full of angels and would _never_ do that is not an acceptable answer.
It is hard to believe that this is where we are in the U.S, but Trump and his people are now openly working (using taxpayer dollars) to cause people to report their religion to the U.S. government. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/looked-like-a-scam-trump-admin-asks-college-employees-if-they-re-jewish/ar-AA1DviX5?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LCTS&cvid=29ee5076ac314b1ce0a078dd1d23bdfe&ei=18
We all should be on the same side of these issues. Our Constitution commands that each person's religion, religious affiliation(s) or sentiments for or against any religion be left to the dictates of such person's own conscience. Mere expressions of support for or against any religion or religious association are beyond the power of any government in the U.S. to regulate.
James Madison put it pretty well in his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, [ca. 20 June] 1785"
"[I]t is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties" secured by the First Amendment and "this prudent jealousy" is "the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the [American] Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish [any religion], in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of [any religion], in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"
Humble 1L here, so take my legal perspective with a full dose of salt. Procedure is an unreliable basis for objecting to exercises executive power. If the government's interest is significant, the procedural requirements can shrink in a hurry. I find it odd that procedural objections are #1 on your list. If you want to understand the "legal" situation, you have to be able to imagine that things could change. Especially procedural requirements, but also other ambiguous areas of law such as context-dependency of rights.